3 ms·
I've always believed that a language should have as little native as possible; the more you can off-load into a library, the better because it lets people exten
by tikhonj 15y ago
I've always believed that a language should have as little native as possible; the more you can off-load into a library, the better because it lets people extend the language in the language.
Why have first-class unit tests when they could be built on top of some other feature? If tests are part of the language, then using a different testing system (say something in the style of QuickCheck) would probably be at a disadvantage; if you have a language that can support expressive testing as a library, then it would be possible to add different styles of testing.
- jbellis 15y agoSee also: "Growing a language." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 / http://cs.au.dk/~hosc/local/HOSC-12-3-pp221-236.pdf http://cs.au.dk/~hosc/local/HOSC-12-3-pp221-236.pdf
- tikhonj 15y agoHeh, I actually thought about that talk (and Guy Steele) while I was writing my post. I wanted to include a quote from there, but didn't remember the title of the talk. Thanks for finding it :) Edit: Actually, I was thinking of a different talk. Or maybe just a random quote I saw somewhere. This talk is still very interesting.
- brson 15y agoTests are mostly built-in to make sure there's no excuse to not test, but it is intended to be minimal and that other test frameworks can build off it (though it's not clear exactly how yet).